New points scheme for 2010

[christophulus]

A new scoring system was put forward which will award 25 points to each race winner, 20 for second place, 15 for third and 10 for fourth, before descending 8-6-5-3-2-1 for fifth through 10th positions.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80521

Seems like a drastic change but does reward winners more. With 26 cars there's more for the new guys to scrap over too.

[VkmSpouge]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80521

Seems like a drastic change but does reward winners more. With 26 cars there's more for the new guys to scrap over too.

It doesn't really reward winners more. 25 points is 2.5 times 10 points. 20 points is 2.5 times 8 points. 15 points is 2.5 times 6 points. When you get to 4th, 5th and 6th these are merely doubled. So the top three are reward more compared to others but the gap between the top three points is proportionally the same.

Personally I like the idea, it will make it a little easier for smaller teams to get on the scoreboard but they will still have to work very hard for it.

[Sonic]

Is this for real? Change it all again???

[Robinho]

makes sense, given the expanded grid, to award some points further down the order, and it sure beats the daft medals idea.

before anyone asks, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of 2009, the only changes would be Trulli would beat Rosberg to 7th, Glock beats Alonso to 9th, Heidfield and Kubica tie for 13th and Nakajima and Piquet both get points (piquet only one point)

[Blancvino]

My pic ... 1st 20, 2nd 17, 3rd 15, 4th 10, 5th 8, 6th 6, 7th, 4, 8th 3, 9th 2, 10th 1

Rewards the winner and the podium

[The Pits!]

Is this for real? Change it all again???
and again, and again, and again :( I've lost count of the tweaks that have been done to the points system

[Nikki Katz]

I don't love it but it's an awful lot better than Bernie's idea that he tried to impose on everyone. If there actually are 26 cars throughout the season then it would make more sense to give out top 10 points. Back when there used to be 26 cars, half of them would break down. That hardly ever happens now.

[Rollo]

makes sense, given the expanded grid,

Expanded Grid?

The last time we actually had the full 26 cars on the grid was Monaco 1995, after the demise of Simtek. Grids were limited to 26 back in 1976, whilst the 107% rule was introduced in 1996.
I don't understand why points are being extended, when the number of cars is only just back to a "normal" grid.

If anything there will probably some sort of calculation around the points system to link it to TV money, and linking it to the number of points the teams score. That way because everything has been skewed upwards, the "bigger" teams are likely to get a bigger slice of the pie.

Winning drivers and teams will always end up on top (except for one year when Prost was penalised for being more consistent than Senna), and I think that this is a farce.

[ioan]

I don't understand why points are being extended, when the number of cars is only just back to a "normal" grid.

Makes for better marketing and show.

[DazzlaF1]

Too extreme a jump in my view, you may as well rip up Schumacher's record of 1369 if they introduce that seeing champions would score in excess of 300 points to win the title

Id go with this, it would fit in with Bernie's vision of rewarding race winners more

1st - 15
2nd - 10
3rd - 8
4th - 7
5th - 6
6th - 5
7th - 4
8th - 3
9th - 2
10th - 1

[Rollo]

If I was grand poo-bah I would have awarded points:
10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 with 1 point for getting pole and 1 point for leading a lap of the race at some point.

[wedge]

Dumb idea

Points should be earnt especially now that the cars are so close the midfield is tighter than ever. The present top 8 needed refining somewhat.

[DazzlaF1]

Dumb idea

Points should be earnt especially now that the cars are so close the midfield is tighter than ever. The present top 8 needed refining somewhat.

Aye, awarding 1 point less for 2nd place probably would have been enough

[BTCC2]

Anyone familiar with the phrase 'If it aint broke, don't fix it'....
There are far too many silly and pointless changes happening year in year out these days in F1 and it isn't helping.

[Josti]

Leave it at top 8, increase difference between 1st and 2nd. That's all they need to do IMO.

[AJP]

Makes for better marketing and show.

I agree..!

[Saint Devote]

I dont even care anymore - it looks like NASCAR and that turns me OFF.

Its bad enough that they now have concerts and people are referring to f1 as "entertainment". Whats next? Heats with reverse grids?!!

Its the dumbing down of motor racing because society in general is a lot more pathetic and stupid than years ago.

Excuse me while I go and vomit!

[truefan72]

a tweek yes, but this drastic apprach is too much IMO

I think the best would be as follows:

1 - 18
2 - 14
3 - 11
4 - 8
5 - 6
6 - 5
7 - 4
8 - 3
9 - 2
10 - 1

no points for pole or fastest lap. the reward of pole position is starting first on the grid. and with low fuel qualy there is no need for it. It would have been an incentive in these past few years q3 qualy sessions, but not any more.

[maximilian]

before anyone asks, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of 2009, the only changes would be Trulli would beat Rosberg to 7th, Glock beats Alonso to 9th, Heidfield and Kubica tie for 13th and Nakajima and Piquet both get points (piquet only one point)
Since you went thru the trouble of calculating it, would you mind posting the entire list here too? I'd like to see how it looks (and yes, I am too lazy to do it myself!) :D

That said, would it have changed any of the 1-pointer seasons 2007 and 2008?

[F1boat]

Too extreme a jump in my view, you may as well rip up Schumacher's record of 1369 if they introduce that seeing champions would score in excess of 300 points to win the title

Id go with this, it would fit in with Bernie's vision of rewarding race winners more

1st - 15
2nd - 10
3rd - 8
4th - 7
5th - 6
6th - 5
7th - 4
8th - 3
9th - 2
10th - 1

I agree with your system.

[Storm]

I like DazzlaF1's points system too due to it having a larger gap between P1 and P2 and making the jump from current 10 to 15 for P1.
Also top 8 finishers in points should be enough not 10!
You need to earn the points, not just get them because you are down in 11/12th and a couple of cars break down in front of you.

[DexDexter]

Doesn't sound too bad. When I first saw the story I thought Bernie had somehow brought the medals back, thank God not! :rolleyes:

[Dr. Krogshöj]

I agree with your system.

Seconded. Dazzla's system is great.

It will be interesting though, to see how the Todt-FIA reacts to the teams's proposal. We all know how the Max-FIA reacted in February when they completely ignored the FOTA proposal and instead voted to the idiotic medal system.

[Hawkmoon]

10-6-4-3-2-1.

Wasn't broken when they changed it. Isn't broken now.

Bernie can go **** himself!

[ArrowsFA1]

So the winner gets more points...so? If those chasing him can't follow closely enough to be able to challenge then making a win worth more doesn't really change anything.

Before making changes like this the powers that be need to look at the cars, and circuits, first.

[F1boat]

So the winner gets more points...so? If those chasing him can't follow closely enough to be able to challenge then making a win worth more doesn't really change anything.

Before making changes like this the powers that be need to look at the cars, and circuits, first.

With all due respect, I disagree. Recently I watched a 1992 race, the German GP. It was a great race, but the overtaking was extremely difficult, even with a vastly superior car. James Hunt said that overtaking is too difficult. I think that this is normal and expected. There is nothing wrong with this. Exceptional races are like this - exceptional. Overtaking in F1 today is what it should be - possible, but very, very hard. But Jenson and Lewis proved that it is possible. However, I do think that it will be a mistake to make it too easy, like in a 125cc race. Maybe that was the way in the 60s and 70s but that was a long, long time ago. For the last 10, maybe 15 or 20 years we had seasons with dominating cars, with difficult overtaking, with cars deciding who is the WDC. This is normal. It's part of the game. F1 is not and must not be like club racing or even touring car racing. The last seasons in the sport was tremendous. Kimi chasing Fred in 2005. Michael chasing Fred in 2006, the great battle between the old and the new king. 2007 - the arrival of Lewis, the battle with Alonso, the stunning championship of Kimi. 2008 - the thrilling duel between Lewis and Felipe. 2009 - the faerie tale story of Jenson, the rise of Vettel. It is unfair to ask for more IMO. It is unfair to want to turn this wonderful, dramatic sport into 125 cc or WTCC. The only thing which can be improved is the reward which the winner gets. That is. The rest IMO is stupid. Check soccer. Can you imagine, after Greece won the European championship with defensive game, to want to change the rules? It will be weird. Sometimes this happend. The next EC Spain won with magical play.
Same with F1. We will have seasons like 2004 and like 2008. It's part of the tradition of F1.
Sorry for the long, slightly OT topic.

[ArrowsFA1]

Overtaking in F1 today is what it should be - possible, but very, very hard. But Jenson and Lewis proved that it is possible. However, I do think that it will be a mistake to make it too easy...
I agree :up: I certainly don't want it being made easy, but attempts to make it easier last year didn't really work and I think, rather than changing the points system, the FIA should be looking at the cars themselves first (and maybe the circuits) to reduce the influence of the aero to increase the possibilities of overtaking.

If they were to do that then the incentive of a greater spread of points, and increase in the value of a win, would have more of an effect in terms of the racing.

As it is, changing the points with the cars as they are won't really make much difference IMHO.

[555-04Q2]

They should go abck to the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system. Worked well and rewarded the winner nicely.

[555-04Q2]

10-6-4-3-2-1.

Wasn't broken when they changed it. Isn't broken now.

Bernie can go **** himself!

100% :up:

[Robinho]

Expanded Grid?

The last time we actually had the full 26 cars on the grid was Monaco 1995, after the demise of Simtek. Grids were limited to 26 back in 1976, whilst the 107% rule was introduced in 1996.
I don't understand why points are being extended, when the number of cars is only just back to a "normal" grid.

If anything there will probably some sort of calculation around the points system to link it to TV money, and linking it to the number of points the teams score. That way because everything has been skewed upwards, the "bigger" teams are likely to get a bigger slice of the pie.

Winning drivers and teams will always end up on top (except for one year when Prost was penalised for being more consistent than Senna), and I think that this is a farce.

but these days its not uncommon for nearly all 20 cars to finish, with the long term engine and gearbox rules the cars are far more consistent than even 5 years ago, let alone 15-20yrs ago. returning to 26 cars i think we'll see in excess of 20 cars finishing most races, and with the competitiveness of the midfield i think top 10 scoring is more than fair.

i'm not convinced with the 25-20 etc structure, but its not going to massivley alter things.

with only top 8 scoring it could quite easily be a Mclaren, Red Bull, Mercedes, Ferrari lock put week after week if we have ever increased reliability, giving teh top 10 something extra to race for is good IMO, and its not like it will reward everyone, not even half the fiield, so you still have to be pretty good to make the points

[Robinho]

Since you went thru the trouble of calculating it, would you mind posting the entire list here too? I'd like to see how it looks (and yes, I am too lazy to do it myself!) :D

That said, would it have changed any of the 1-pointer seasons 2007 and 2008?

Actual 2009 points

1. Jenson Button 95
2. Sebastian Vettel 84
3. Rubens Barrichello 77
4. Mark Webber 69.5
5. Lewis Hamilton 49
6. Kimi Raikkonen 48
7. Nico Rosberg 34.5
8. Jarno Trulli 32.5
9. Fernando Alonso 26
10. Timo Glock 24
11. Felipe Massa 22
12. Heikki Kovalainen 22
13. Nick Heidfeld 19
14. Robert Kubica 17
15. Giancarlo Fisichella 8
16. Sebastien Buemi 6
17. Adrian Sutil 5
18. Kamui Kobayashi 3
19. Sebastien Bourdais 2

New Points System

1. Jenson Button 230.5
2. Sebastian Vettel 203
3. Rubens Barrichello 183
4. Mark Webber 175
5. Lewis Hamilton 120.5
6. Kimi Raikkonen 119
7. Jarno Trulli 78
8. Nico Rosberg 75.5
9. Timo Glock 63.5
10. Fernando Alonso 62
11. Felipe Massa 48
12. Heikki Kovalainen 46
13. Nick Heidfeld 44
13. Robert Kubica 44
15. Giancarlo Fisichella 26
16. Sebastien Buemi 16
17. Adrian Sutil 13
18. Kamui Kobayashi 8
19. Sebastien Bourdais 6.5
20. Kazuki Nakajima 5
21. Nelsinho Piquet 1


apologies for the formatting.

not looked at any other seasons.

[V12]

10-6-4-3-2-1 was the system I grew up with, was great for it's time, and I still subconsciously think of 10-6-4-3-2-1 when I think of "motor sport points systems" but sadly with the annoying reliability of F1 cars these days, it's outdated. I'm strongly against change for change's sake (i.e. 99% of changes made since the end of 2002), but the points system isn't one of them, this is change that's needed. 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 was an awkward half-arsed measure that resulted in the winners not being rewarded enough. A complete overhaul has been needed for a few years now. In my book: If you're going to change something, do it with no half-measures, then leave it alone for a long time.

As for the all time stats, well yes this will skew them massively, but with all the various slight changes over the years, and the progressive increase in the calendar (only six races in 1950!), they are a bit skewed anyway - David Coulthard has near enough twice the points of Juan Manuel Fangio, even allowing for the fact that his career was twice as many years long, that still says something.

All points are, and were, ever meant for, is deciding the most worthy world champion in a particular season, not for determining the greatest ever driver (which no stat can do, but especially not points).

[Bezza]

Too extreme a jump in my view, you may as well rip up Schumacher's record of 1369 if they introduce that seeing champions would score in excess of 300 points to win the title

Id go with this, it would fit in with Bernie's vision of rewarding race winners more

1st - 15
2nd - 10
3rd - 8
4th - 7
5th - 6
6th - 5
7th - 4
8th - 3
9th - 2
10th - 1

I like the new system however agree on the records front. There should be some sort of special record system where points are always worked out at 10-6-4-3-2-1 to allow fair comparison between different drivers and era's.

The thing I would say here is it really does promote reliability as key. Imagine retiring from the lead - thats zero points for you, and say your contender is having an average day in 4th. He gets 10! Thats twice as much as now.

If we have 26 cars this sytem works. If they ever go back to 20/22 then we would need to look at changing it again.

[Bezza]

I must add also that there should be a larger points gap between 1st and 2nd compared to the rest to allow drivers to go for the win.

Also, 7th and 8th need sorting out.

[Mark]

Pos Pnts Gap
1 25
2 20 5
3 15 5
4 10 5
5 8 2
6 6 2
7 5 1
8 3 2
9 2 1
10 1 1
You have a two point get between 4th and 5th, and between 5th and 6th.
Then you have a 1 point get bweetn 6th and 7th, then a two point gap between 7th and 8th, then back down to a one point gap beween 8th, 9th and 10th.

That doesn't make any sense at all!

Also you have the same points gap between 1st, 2nd and 3rd, which shouldn't be the case either, the 1st placed driver should open up more of a points gap to the second placed than the second placed dees to the third.

Other than that, top 10 scoring is a good idea :up:

DazzlaF1's system makes much more sense


Pos Pnts Gap
1 15
2 10 5
3 8 2
4 7 1
5 6 1
6 5 1
7 4 1
8 3 1
9 2 1
1 1 1


A smooth curve in points differences, plus the winner gets significantly more points than those behind.

[harsha]

get ready to change the pickems system :p :

[AndyL]

Nakajima and Piquet both get points (piquet only one point)

That's the best argument against this new scheme that I've heard yet ;)

[AndyL]

Seems like a drastic change but does reward winners more.

As others have pointed out it doesn't really change the proportional differences between 1st, 2nd and 3rd - but you're not the only one to have made this inference Christophulus. They asked Jenson Button about it on Radio 5 this morning and he said he thought it would be an improvement given the bigger gap between 1st and 2nd.
To be fair he had no idea the points system was changing until they asked him what he thought of it. I guess no-one is keeping him informed while he's between jobs!

[christophulus]

As others have pointed out it doesn't really change the proportional differences between 1st, 2nd and 3rd - but you're not the only one to have made this inference.

Agreed, once I did the maths it doesn't make sense.

Looks to be official though :(


A statement from today's meeting of the World Council said: "Due to the expanded grid of 13 teams, and further to the recommendation of the F1 Commission, a new points system will be in place for the 2010 season."

The new system will award points in the following order: 25-20-15-10-8-6-5-3-2-1.
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80531

[ioan]

So the winner gets more points...so?

Almost everyone gets more points, where's the big difference?
The only thing different that will happen is that the new teams will be able to luck into a point every now end then, when the big guys dnf, and they can lure a sponsor easier saying that they've scored F1 championship points.

[ioan]

As others have pointed out it doesn't really change the proportional differences between 1st, 2nd and 3rd - but you're not the only one to have made this inference Christophulus. They asked Jenson Button about it on Radio 5 this morning and he said he thought it would be an improvement given the bigger gap between 1st and 2nd.
To be fair he had no idea the points system was changing until they asked him what he thought of it. I guess no-one is keeping him informed while he's between jobs!

The conclusion is that Button is bad at maths! ;)

[Sonic]

The conclusion is that Button is bad at maths! ;)

The list of things he is bad at grows daily ;) :D

[UltimateDanGTR]

what i cant get is that 6th gets 6, 7th gets 5, but 8th gets 3. silly. and to be honest, im not sure this is worth it if you are only going to extend points down to 10th (if extending down to only 10th-btcc system is best except with 16 for a win instead of 12). id rather see top 12, like this:

26-20-14-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

or

26-18-14-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

[Big Ben]

well... i´d rather see the 10-6-4-3-2-1 back instead... and if necessary they cand have their own financial pointing system if that´s the issue... I really don´t care who finishes 7th and who 8th.

[jens]

I like the fact that the Top10 will be getting points, especially in modern days of ultra-reliability. I really don't appreciate the arguments of "but a point should be worth something", "the scores will be too high", "historic all-time scores will mean nothing", etc, etc. IMO the first and foremost function of a points system is to rank teams and drivers in as accurate way as possible given their performance. Giving points to more competitors will hence give a fairer ranking from top to bottom, reducing the factor of flukes. A good example is 2003 - Jordan finished 9th in WCC that year, but with a pre-2003 points system Jordan would have finished 5th (!!) thanks to a lucky win despite being literally a backmarker all season.

But if we take a closer look at the FIA's new system, some weird things appear there. Firstly like has been mentioned here - places 6-8: points 6-5-3. Really - wtf?!?! This sounds unlogical. 6-4-3 would make much more sense. Secondly podium places have been strongly emphasized compared to the rest of the results. For instance throughout the history of F1 I have been used to seeing 1 point separating 3rd and 4th - now it suddenly rises to 5! IMO a smoother and more gradual points degradation system should have been implemented like 20-15-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1 for Top10, which has been used in various motorsports series.

[Hawkmoon]

Actual 2009 points

1. Jenson Button 95
2. Sebastian Vettel 84
3. Rubens Barrichello 77
4. Mark Webber 69.5
5. Lewis Hamilton 49
6. Kimi Raikkonen 48
7. Nico Rosberg 34.5
8. Jarno Trulli 32.5
9. Fernando Alonso 26
10. Timo Glock 24
11. Felipe Massa 22
12. Heikki Kovalainen 22
13. Nick Heidfeld 19
14. Robert Kubica 17
15. Giancarlo Fisichella 8
16. Sebastien Buemi 6
17. Adrian Sutil 5
18. Kamui Kobayashi 3
19. Sebastien Bourdais 2

New Points System

1. Jenson Button 230.5
2. Sebastian Vettel 203
3. Rubens Barrichello 183
4. Mark Webber 175
5. Lewis Hamilton 120.5
6. Kimi Raikkonen 119
7. Jarno Trulli 78
8. Nico Rosberg 75.5
9. Timo Glock 63.5
10. Fernando Alonso 62
11. Felipe Massa 48
12. Heikki Kovalainen 46
13. Nick Heidfeld 44
13. Robert Kubica 44
15. Giancarlo Fisichella 26
16. Sebastien Buemi 16
17. Adrian Sutil 13
18. Kamui Kobayashi 8
19. Sebastien Bourdais 6.5
20. Kazuki Nakajima 5
21. Nelsinho Piquet 1


apologies for the formatting.

not looked at any other seasons.

This little excercise points out exactly why changing points systems is a stupid waste of time. Every time this issue is raised we go back and look at past seasons to see what difference it would have made. In the vast majority of cases it makes no difference to the only position that counts, the world champion.

So why make a change? The driver's end up in exactly the same position, only with double the points. Doesn't change the championship, doesn't make it any more exciting, doesn't address the real problems the sport faces. This is change for change's sake and nothing else.

Bernie can go **** himself!

[wedge]

I like the fact that the Top10 will be getting points, especially in modern days of ultra-reliability. I really don't appreciate the arguments of "but a point should be worth something", "the scores will be too high", "historic all-time scores will mean nothing", etc, etc. IMO the first and foremost function of a points system is to rank teams and drivers in as accurate way as possible given their performance. Giving points to more competitors will hence give a fairer ranking from top to bottom, reducing the factor of flukes. A good example is 2003 - Jordan finished 9th in WCC that year, but with a pre-2003 points system Jordan would have finished 5th (!!) thanks to a lucky win despite being literally a backmarker all season.

Points should be earnt.

The cars are so reliable, so equal that the midfield is uber-competitive there's no reason to go back to the old top 6 format.

[harvick#1]

Bernie can go **** himself!

at least its not the "Medal" system him and Mad max were wanting, what a joke that would be

[Daniel]

I thought Jenson was a bit dim too. No difference for the top few drivers really.

[V12]

Points should be earnt.

The cars are so reliable, so equal that the midfield is uber-competitive there's no reason to go back to the old top 6 format.

I agree points should be earned, but surely it's as much achievement for a back of the grid team to scrap their way to 10th, than it was for a late 80s/early 90s backmarker to outlast two thirds of the field to finish 6th?

If this was some NASCAR/IRL type system with every starter picking up some points I'd say it was a farce, but top 10 is about right IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE a return to the early 90s with less restricted technical regs, more unreliability, a wider performance gap from front to back, and so on, simply because in the past when my favourite driver was winning by 30 seconds I was still on the edge of my seat waiting for those first puffs of smoke, but F1 cars run like trains now (well not British trains, but you know what I mean), and now if someone gets a huge lead, it's game over, save for some artifical interruption like a "safety" car.

This change was needed, yes it messes up the all time stats but that's the only drawback as far as I can see, it doesn't devalue the idea of earning (a) point(s), and as I say the all time points stats rate Coulthard as twice the driver of Fangio, and Fisichella as JMF's equal, so they're pretty much meaningless anyway, I'm sure someone out there will apply a standard points system retrospectively to all the past WCGPs for a meaningful comparison anyway.


at least its not the "Medal" system him and Mad max were wanting, what a joke that would be

Exactly.

[wedge]

If this was some NASCAR/IRL type system with every starter picking up some points I'd say it was a farce, but top 10 is about right IMO.

Yep, too much emphasis on consistency, having a car thats reliable.

I know I've slagged off Bunsen too many times but at least he made some effort to pick a point or two, I give him that much.

[Mark]

get ready to change the pickems system :p :

I thought about that but the only connection pickems scoring has to F1 scoring is that you choose the top 8 finishers. Apart from that the points that are awarded are completely different. And I don't see any advantage in changing the pickems from top 8 to top 10, after all they still pick top 8 for the likes of NASCAR and BTCC which already score more than 8 drivers.

If only this system had been in place in 1999.

[jens]

If only this system had been in place in 1999.

Already the post-2003 system would have been enough for Irvine's title. :p :

[Robinho]

i like the idea of rewarding down to tenth - if we indeed end up with 26 cars, and the reliability stays as high as this year (should be more so) then we'll regularly have more than 20 finishers, so i think the top 10 will have done enough to earned a point

[Garry Walker]

a tweek yes, but this drastic apprach is too much IMO

I think the best would be as follows:

1 - 18
2 - 14
3 - 11
4 - 8
5 - 6
6 - 5
7 - 4
8 - 3
9 - 2
10 - 1

no points for pole or fastest lap. the reward of pole position is starting first on the grid. and with low fuel qualy there is no need for it. It would have been an incentive in these past few years q3 qualy sessions, but not any more.
Even more idiotic system than the one they are trying to push through now.

Seriously, what is wrong with the current one? Nothing whatsoever.

[Robinho]

If only this system had been in place in 1999. and there would be no way in hell you could ever argue that Button is the least deserving champion ever!

[71minus2]

For me the fundamental element of any points allocation is that 1st is not fewer points than 2nd and 3rd combined. This new system is going to make no difference to the title but will make it more interesting as the mid field battle will have an incentive of a championship point or 2. Is that such a bad thing?

Personally i'd like to see point awarded to Pole and Fastest Lap.

[Rollo]

and there would be no way in hell you could ever argue that Button is the least deserving champion ever!

That goes to Ayrton Senna in 1988 when Prost was penalised for finishing more races in a better position.

[DazzlaF1]

That goes to Ayrton Senna in 1988 when Prost was penalised for finishing more races in a better position.

Aye i never liked the "best <insert number of races here> scores count" rule, if that weren't in force, Prost would have won by a healthy 11 point margin (105 to Senna's 94)

[wedge]

Even more idiotic system than the one they are trying to push through now.

Seriously, what is wrong with the current one? Nothing whatsoever.

Lesser teams want more pocket money

[Garry Walker]

Lesser teams want more pocket money
I couldnt care less if teams such as manor are in F1. Quality over quantity.

[maximilian]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81048

Thankfully, it now appears that the points system change has been revised to 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 - which should make (almost) everyone happy for a change? :D Maybe they ARE reading this forum? NOT!

[christophulus]

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/81048

Thankfully, it now appears that the points system change has been revised to 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 - which should make (almost) everyone happy for a change? :D Maybe they ARE reading this forum? NOT!

It doesn't make much difference really, still over-rewards the lower placings compared to the existing system, even though the gap from 1st - 2nd is bigger.

http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/F1pointssystemspercentages.png

All credit to F1 Fanatic:http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/01/25/teams-considering-an-even-more-generous-points-system-for-2010/

[truefan72]

I won't say it over-rewards lower potions when there is a 10 point difference between 1st and3rd and a 15 point difference between 1st and 4th, even the difference between 3rd and 4th is 3 points which is a bigger difference than 2009.

I think this points system is good for 2 reasons.
1. it really will reward drivers for finishing higher, especially in the top 5 positions, with a real advantage for a podium. A Race win will be a big reward to any driver worthy of risking more vs. what we had in the past few years where coming in 2nd was nearly as good as winning.

2. It will really allow for more jostling in the midpack and allow all drivers and teams to fight for an additional 2 points paying positions. those 8,9,10 spots might prove crucual to an overall championship down the line, allowing for a team/driver that made a bad start or suffered from some problem during the race, or a bad qualy to keep fighting for something.

I assume the F1 will also compensate all points paying postions accordingly, which should make some teams happy. (and btw find a way to collect more superlicense fees in 2011 :( )

[Hondo]

Take the new points system and change one aspect. A driver's and Team's first win pays 100 points to the driver and 100 points to the team. This is a one time deal only. Any wins after that pay the 25 points. If the team's second driver wins a race also, the driver would get the 100 points but the team, with a win already, would receive 25 points. Although not impossible, it would be difficult to win a championship without a racetrack win also.

[maximilian]

Take the new points system and change one aspect. A driver's and Team's first win pays 100 points to the driver and 100 points to the team. This is a one time deal only. Any wins after that pay the 25 points. If the team's second driver wins a race also, the driver would get the 100 points but the team, with a win already, would receive 25 points. Although not impossible, it would be difficult to win a championship without a racetrack win also.
How many times has a driver won the Championship without winning a race?

[Mark]

How many times has a driver won the Championship without winning a race?

None.

[maximilian]

None.
Thank you. Then no need for the 100-points idea. :)

[Hondo]

Thank you. Then no need for the 100-points idea. :)

Of course there was a need for it. Otherwise it wouldn't have been presented.

[Mia 01]

The point system is the same for every driver and team.

[maximilian]

Of course there was a need for it. Otherwise it wouldn't have been presented.
Presented by who? You?
Since no one has ever won the championship without winning a race, there is indeed NO need for this idea.

[maximilian]

Thank god for that latest change to the points system. I was getting fed up of these down to the wire, one point title deciders... :rolleyes:
I am just waiting for SOMEONE to "finally" re-calculate how all the championships would have come out using this new system... anyone? :D

[Sonic]

Well it won't be me Max! ;)

I can live with these points. I don't think anything will ever come close to the simplicity and function of the good old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system but this is fine. The % gap between first and second is reasonable and I've long advocated something for the smaller teams to scrap over.

[maximilian]

Well it won't be me Max! ;)

Darn! Next? :D

[maximilian]

I am still waiting for "someone" to do the re-calculations on the past few seasons to see how they would have come out with the new points scheme! :D

[maximilian]

Pop over to the autosport forum, there loads of fancy graphs and arguements over there.. :p

Lewis still would have won in 2008 which brings a smile to my face... :)
http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showtopic=120256&st=480&start=480

Ah yes, thanks for that! And so it turns out... it makes NO difference either way :D

Nevertheless, I am kinda excited about points going down to 10th place, and I think that WILL cause a few more overtaking maneuvers in those positions that formerly didn't matter much...

[jens]

The endless changing has become a bit of circus really - can't they agree on something as simple as points system and keep changing it throughout winter? :p :

Actually I don't like that "25-18-etc" version much, it makes points calculations more complicated. Couldn't they simply use much simpler "20-15-etc"??